Politics is about persuading voters about priorities.
To do so, facts are important, but they can also be misused in an attempt to win the debate.
Here the facts fight back. This site presents the facts to help keep the debate clean and to persuade politicians and others to stick to the facts.

RET uncertainty > Check the facts

No sector has the right to be artificially insulated from uncertainty.…[the renewable energy sector has] always known that the RET has been opposed by Coalition and Labor MPs concerned to preserve jobs.

The push for a cut in the Renewable Energy Target (RET) amongst Coalition MPs is inconsistent with previous bipartisan support for the RET.

The Coalition is very much aware of the importance of providing certainty for the renewable energy sector and that any significant change would create sovereign risk.

The RET was introduced by the Howard Government and we have been consistent in our support for the scheme which assists in reducing Australia’s CO2 emissions.

In 2012, Mr Hunt, the current Minister for Environment said in opposition:

I have supported, believed in, committed to and engaged in helping to push through—I even negotiated with the current minister, and I thank him for that—the 20 per cent renewable energy target . There are those who are critical of it; I am guilty as sin of supporting it.

As far back as 2009 Mr Hunt was advocating the Coalition’s support for the RET.

We support this objective of a 20 per cent renewable energy target for Australia.

The government has long been a supporter of the RET and has made repeated suggestions that changes to it would create uncertainty for the industry. It is the now the government that is creating uncertainty for the renewable energy sector by rescinding its previously bipartisan support.

3 Responses

David RowellOctober 24, 2014 at 11:12 pm ·

I support a 20% RET based on current projected energy usage. That is reasonable and predictable.
As the Government has yet to decide its response to the RET Review all commentators from both sides of the debate are equally responsible for the “lack of certainty” for the Renewables industry.

peterOctober 26, 2014 at 10:26 pm ·

The problem was the original legislation defined a 20% reduction in a variable quantity with a fixed number based on all sorts of estimates and assumptions. You can have a fixed target if you like, or you can have a variable target. But it is ridiculous to run both at the same time.

[…] it’s no longer about the hip pocket, now it’s about certainty. (Never mind that, by changing a long-standing bipartisan environmental policy despite denying that such change would take place, the Government is doing everything but offer […]

Why

Between elections governments are held to account through debate. This debate takes place in the parliament, media, in workplaces, at BBQs and parties, around the kitchen table and online.Politicians, pundits and interest groups attempt to influence the debate and persuade us which side of the debate to take.

.

Should the Australian government encourage renewable forms of energy or do we need to support fossil fuels? Is returning the budget back to surplus the number one priority and if so should be decrease spending or increase revenue? Should we focus on industrial relations or indigenous recognition?

.

There are, of course, no right answers to such questions. But to use the complexity of a policy issue to cloud debate with half-truths and misrepresentation of the facts to win the debate undermines the democratic accountability of government.

.

The media plays an important role in presenting an even handed account of the debate and ensuring a range of voices are heard. In turn politicians are keen to influence the debate through the media's reporting. Undue influence risks silencing some voices from the debate.
As the political debates continue Facts Fight Back will provide a timely and accessible source of information to help keep the debate clean and and ensure the public, journalists and the politicians themselves keep track of who is sticking to the facts.